M.

Novak
Random Response of Offshore
Professor,
Faculty of Engineering Science,
Towers With Pile-Soil-Pile
The University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario Canada
Interaction
H. Mitwally Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction is analyzed using dynamic interaction factors.
For pile groups, complex stiffness matrices are formulated in closed form for
Project Engineer,
PMB Systems Engineering, Inc.,
excitation in all vibration modes and introduced into the analysis of an offshore
San Francisco, CA
tower. The effects of dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction on tower response to random
wave forces are demonstrated. Temporal as well as spatial randomness of wave
forces are considered.

Introduction
Theoretical and experimental studies of offshore structure
response are important for two reasons: the high-frequency
(low-amplitude) response controls fatigue and the low-fre-
quency (high-amplitude) response relates to strength. In this
study, an attempt is made to improve the response analysis
by accounting for pile-soil-pile interaction and by employing
an alternative and more efficient method for wave load eval-
uation in terms of random vibration.
While the flexibility of single piles has been routinely ac-
counted for in the analysis of offshore towers, interaction
between individual piles, known as pile-soil-pile interaction,
has been recognized only by a few authors {Numerical Meth-
ods in Offshore Piling, 1982; O'Neill, 1983), and its effects on
the tower response are not fully appreciated. In this paper,
the inclusion of pile-soil-pile interaction in the complex foun-
dation stiffness matrix is outlined and its effects on the tower
modal properties and response to wave forces are demon-
strated.
Sea surface elevation can be considered either as unidirec-
tional or directional. Using a directional spectrum rather than
a unidirectional spectrum results in two main differences
namely, the presence of an across-wave force component and
the reduction of the along wave force component. However,
using the directional spectrum is computationally time-
consuming. An alternative model is employed in this study
which is computationally advantageous, gives results that are
close to those obtained with the directional spectrum and
allows for some spatial correlation effects not accounted for
in the directional spectrum approach.
Pile Foundation Stiffness Matrix
Unless a code for direct analysis of pile groups is available,
the basic elements necessary to describe the foundation prop-
erties are impedance functions of single piles and interaction
factors. Impedance functions are complex, frequency-depend-
ent numbers whose real parts represent the true stiffness and
Contributed by the OMAE Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF
OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received by the
OMAE Division, 1988; revised manuscript received April 28, 1989.
imaginary parts represent damping. To evaluate them, the
solution developed in (Novak, 1974) and implemented in the
computer program PILAY2 (Novak et al., 1981) is used in
this study.
Pile-soil-pile interaction is incorporated in the analysis us-
ing dynamic interaction factors. Pile group stiffness constants
evaluated using this approach compare quite well with those
evaluated using a direct analysis of the whole group for both
static (El Sharnouby, 1985) and dynamic (Kaynia, 1982)
analyses. For two identical and equally loaded piles i and j , a
dynamic interaction factor <xu is defined as
dynamic displacement of
_ pile i due to load on pile j
" static displacement of
pile j due to its own load
Dynamic interaction factors are frequency-dependent com-
plex numbers which depend on, among other factors, EJEP,
A„ and S/d where Ep, dare the Young's modulus and diameter
of the pile, respectively, Es is the soil Young's modulus, S is
the spacing between the piles, and AB = wd/Vs where oi is the
circular frequency and Vs is soil shear wave velocity. For
inclusion in a computer analysis of pile supported towers, the
dynamic interaction factors produced by Kaynia and Kausel
(Kaynia, 1982) are fitted with analytic expressions and a two-
dimensional interpolation scheme is used to allow the evalu-
ation for any spacing and frequency (Mitwally, 1987).
Monitoring of natural frequencies of existing towers indi-
cate that during heavy storms, the natural frequencies may
drop significantly but recover after a calm period.1 This is
attributed to pile loosening (gapping) due to large displace-
ments and subsequent "healing" of the soil. To account for
the effect of gapping (separation) on dynamic interaction
factors, the dynamic interaction factors from (Kaynia, 1982)
were recalculated to allow for pile free length and are given
in (Mitwally, 1987). The absolute values of both the real and
imaginary parts of the interaction factors are reduced by the
' Private communications with L. R. Wooton (Atkins Research and Devel-
opment, U.K.) and J. F. Howell (Vipac, Australia).

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering FEBRUARY 1990, Vol. 1 1 2 / 35

Copyright © 1990 by ASME

Downloaded 13 Sep 2008 to 203.110.243.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 presence of separation. This reduction counteracts the more
dramatic reduction of single pile stiffness.
Foundation Flexibility Matrix. When the pile cap is flex-
ible or absent, the complex foundation stiffness matrix [Kb]
is the inverse of the complex foundation flexibility matrix.
The true stiffness matrix of the foundation [K/\ is the real
part of [Kb] and the foundation damping matrix [Q] is given
by
[Cf\ = Im([^])/co
of equal piles are evaluated in closed form by imposing the
proper boundary conditions as shown in the forthcoming.
From the complex group stiffness (impedance) KG the true
stiffness follows as kG = Re KG, and the constant of equivalent
viscous damping is cG = Im KG/o>.
Vertical Group Stiffness. The compatibility equations can
be expressed in terms offlexibilityas
(1) M«Ur] = M (4)

where a> is the first natural frequency of the tower. Because
the foundation stiffness and damping matrices are frequency-
dependent, the impedance functions and interaction factors
are evaluated at the first natural frequency of the tower which
is obtained by iteration starting with an undamped system
and classical modal analysis.
For a group of n pile, the complex flexibility matrix [Fb] is
where fv is the static vertical flexibility of a single pile, {P}
and jv} are the vectors of vertical forces and vertical displace-
ments at the pile heads, respectively, and [a]v is the interaction
matrix of the vertical displacements, written as
f «ii

a 6« X 6n symmetric matrix

1/1. [flu [flu,

[«],= // (5)

[*i] = [fin m« LA, (2)

//
In (5), the ratio
m,i lf]n [fin / / =/.//. (6)
In equation (2), each of the diagonal submatrices [/],, is the in which f, = complex vertical dynamic flexibility of a single
6 x 6 flexibility matrix of the single pile being the inverse of pile and atJ = complex vertical interaction factors between
the single-pile complex stiffness matrix defined for the three piles / and j . The boundary conditions in this case are v, = 1
translations u, v and w in directions X, Fand Z and the three for i = 1, 2 , . . . , n and yield the vertical forces on the piles
rotations £, -q and \f> about the same three axes (Fig. 1 a). (For
vertical circular piles, horizontal stiffnesses, rotational stiff- {P}= i [«],-'{!} (7)
nesses and cross coupling terms in directions X and Z are
equal.) The off-diagonal submatrices [fi/j in equation (2) can
be described in terms of the interaction factors, i.e., Denoting the static stiffness of a single-pile Tcv = \/fv and
the complex elements of [a] v _1 by ea, the vertical force P,-
tt v I acting on pile i is
&uuj it a,i*fc
Pi — kv ZJ 6
ij (8)
VJV J-l

Mu- OiwwfuOi^fc (3) (In equation (8), eu axe to be seen as multiplied by unit
displacements.) The group complex stiffness is the sum of all
a
»tfc oc((ft the vertical forces, i.e.,
&wnJv
KG = s/-, = i i i t]j (9)
a
u$Jc <***/+
The group damping constant follows from KG analogously
In equation (3), a — s are the complex dynamic interaction to equation (1).
factors between piles i and j , i.e., a = at + ia2, where i =
V—T and f — s are the static flexibility coefficients; the Horizontal Group Stiffness. If only horizontal stiffness is
subscript c stands for u\p or w£. required, it can be calculated for both pinned-head and fixed-
The tower main legs can be supported either by a single head piles from equation (9) with values of k~u, f,/ and a„„,
large diameter pile as in Fig. 1(a), or by a pile cluster in which pertinent to horizontal translation and the head condition,
the piles are quite closely spaced as in Fig. 1(b). When the substituted in lieu of the values for the vertical analysis.
main legs are supported by single piles, the foundation is , A more general approach which yields the rocking stiffness
considered to be a flexible one and its properties are simply and cross-stiffness has to incorporate head rotations and
included in the analysis by adding the foundation stiffness moments as follows. For horizontal translations and rotations
matrix to that of the superstructure. in either of the two vertical planes, the compatibility equations
are
Rigid Pile Caps. When the main legs are supported by
pile clusters, all piles of the same cluster are connected by one f„[ah\PU=\t>\ (10)
rigid cap which controls the displacements of all pile heads.
In this case, the complex stiffness constants of such a cluster where /„ is the horizontal staticflexibilityof a single free-head

36/Vol. 112, FEBRUARY 1990 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 13 Sep 2008 to 203.110.243.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 iY,v,n
Deck Mean Water
\ Level

Nodes

> Super-Structure

Structure Foundation
Interface
)
Mud Line
JEB« jC

Piles J Sub-Structure

Main Legs

*- X,u,5 PILES

(b)
Z ,w,ljj
Fig. 1 Schematic of offshore towers: (a) jacket-type steel tower supported by group
of piles; (b) concrete platform supported by group of pile clusters

pile, \P}H is the vector of horizontal forces, Hh and moments, For horizontal stiffness, the boundary conditions are u, =
Mi, at the pile heads, i.e., 1 and fa = 0 for i = 1, 2, . . . , n and the horizontal force on
pile i follows from equation (10) as
\P}„ = [HjM, . , . H,M, ... H„MnY (11)
The vector \8] lists the horizontal translations and rotations Hi — Ku 2J C
2;"-1,2J-1 (17)
at the pile heads, i.e., J'-1

\8] = [Hitf'i .. . U,yf/, ... U„\l/„]7 (12) where k„ = l//„ and t" are the complex elements of [a]H~l.
The complex horizontal group stiffness being the sum of all
Finally, [a]H is the matrix of interaction coefficients for the these forces becomes
horizontal translations and rotations. For a group of n piles,
the matrix [a]H has n x n submatrices and is given by Ku — ku J] X 62/-1 , 2 ; - 1 (18)
.[*]> [Blu [Bh.
The summation extends only over those elements of [a]// - '
that correspond to the horizontal forces associated with hori-
zontal displacements, i.e., elements with positions 2/ — 1,
2/ — 1. In (18), k„ is static horizontal stiffness of a free-
[«]« = Wn [Bh [Bl, (13) head (pinned-head) pile, but the group stiffness K„G is ob-
tained for fixed-head piles.
Rocking Stiffness. Rocking group stiffness derives from
two components: the moments required to produce unit
[BU [B]ni • • [B]„ rotations at the pile heads and the moments resulting from
the vertical pile forces. The moments required to produce
where each of the submatrices is 2 x 2 unit rotations at the pile heads are obtained by applying the
boundary conditions \pt• = 1, u,• = 0 (/ = 1, 2, . . . , n) to
\fu' /c'l
[Bh = equation (10). This yields the moment on pile i
U' //J
M,(1) = K X e£2,. (19)
[Bh = >& Ph (14)
\Pu m The vertical pile forces associated with cap rotation are ob-
where tained by applying the boundary condition v, = 1 x x, (i= 1,
2 , . . . , « ) to (4), giving
fr' =fr/fu (15)
and Pi = KY, t'jxj (20)

FlJ=(fr/fuWu, i*j (16)

These forces produce a moment on each pile
where/ are the single-pile dynamic flexibility coefficients and
r stands for u, \p or c and indicates the horizontal translation, Mim = kvx, £ t'ijXj (21)
rocking or coupling directions, respectively.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering FEBRUARY 1990, Vol. 112 / 37

Downloaded 13 Sep 2008 to 203.110.243.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 The rocking group stiffness is the sum of both moments (19)
and (21) over all pile heads, i.e.,
c
Kj, — ku Y, £ 2i,2
~"~ kv 2J ZJ ^ijXjXj
Cross Stiffness. This is obtained by applying the same
boundary conditions, pertaining to the horizontal translations
and rotations, as in the previous case to equation (10), and
evaluating the resulting horizontal pile forces, which become
tli — ku 2J 621-1,2./
7-1
The group cross stiffness is the sum of all horizontal forces
on the pile heads, and hence
"»* — ku Z, Z e 2/-i,:
Torsional Stiffness. The torque required to twist individ-
ual piles is small compared with that resulting from horizontal
forces produced by unit rotation of the cap and can be
neglected. A unit rotation TJ = 1 imposed on the cap results
in the torsional group stiffness
KJ 1 JxZiZj T (t2i-\l2j-\)zXiXj
where (e")x and (t"), refer to the odd, complex elements of
the matrix [aH]~l obtained by inverting equation (13) and xr,
zr are pile distances from the axis X and Z, respectively. All
the formulas for the dynamic group stiffness are analogous to
those for static stiffness (Novak, 1980), to which they reduce
for to —* 0.
Example of a Pile Cluster With a Rigid Cap. The effects
of pile-soil-pile interaction on stiffness constants of a rigid cap
are best illustrated by the group efficiency ratio (GER) defined
for stiffness and damping, respectively, as
Stiffness (damping) of pile group
GER =
n X stiffness (damping) of a single pile
where n is the number of piles in the group.
To illustrate the interaction effects, the GER is evaluated
for a group of two piles and a circular cluster comprising 10
piles. Each pile has an outer diameter of 1.45 m, penetration
of 72.0 m, density ratio ps/p„ = 0.7 and stiffness ratio Ep/Es
= 1000. A rigid massless cap andfixed-headpiles are assumed.
The group efficiency ratios for stiffness and damping are
plotted in Fig. 2 in which the pile group arrangements are
also shown. At low frequencies, the GER for stiffness is usually
less than one. Notice the variation in GER for stiffness with
frequency which is stronger than that of a single pile. GER
equal to one indicates no interaction effects and GER smaller
than one indicates reduction in group stiffness or damping.
For the pile cluster, the reduction in group stiffness is large
and increases with frequency up to about A0 = 0.35. For
damping, the GER may exceed unity, indicating amplification
of energy dissipation through pile interaction. Such amplifi-
cation (or reduction) depends on the ratio of the wavelength
to pile spacing. Group stiffness is usually reduced and can
even vanish or become negative. This is possible because the
stiffness represents only the real part of the complex pile
resistance, and is always accompanied by damping (imaginary
or out-of-phase) part.
In the next part of the paper the effect of pile-soil-pile
interaction on tower response is demonstrated.
38/Vol. 112, FEBRUARY 1990
Downloaded 13 Sep 2008 to 203.110.243.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Stiffness
(22)
(23)
(24)
0-20 0-30
A0 = <oD/Vs
(b)
Fig. 2 Pile-soil-pile interaction effects on stiffness and damping of
) (25)
(a) group of two piles, and (b) cluster of ten piles
Wave Forces
For the analysis of the response to wave forces in terms of
random vibration, all the pertinent power spectra of wave
forces have to be specified.
Power Spectra of Wave Forces. The cross-spectrum of
water particle velocity is assumed to be related to the sea
surface elevation spectrum by Airy wave theory (Sarpkaya,
1981), which is linear. Sea surface elevation spectrum is
considered either unidirectional or directional.
Unidirectional spectrum represents random, long-crested
waves generated from a single storm. In this study, the
Pierson-Moskowitz (1964) spectrum is used which pertains
to fully developed seas; this spectrum depends primarily on
wind velocity, U.
Directional spectrum represents short-crested random
waves generated from different storms traveling in several
directions. It is usually expressed as a product of the unidirec-
tional spectrum, S(w), and a directional spreading function,
G(<c, 6) (Borgman, 1969; Berge, 1973).
Using a directional sea surface elevation spectrum rather
than a unidirectional one in evaluating the spectra of wave
forces results in two main differences: the presence of an
across wave force component and the reduction of the along
wave force component. An alternative model is employed in
this study, which is computationally less expensive and pro-
duces similar effects. This model is based on the use of a
coherence function, and is thus termed the coherence function
model. It provides a convenient way of accounting for spatial
randomness of sea surface elevation, and thus also of water
particle velocities. The approach is described in full detail
(Mitwally, 1989).
Hydrodynamic Forces. Let the d.o.f. / be positioned at
node n at which N„ members meet (Fig. 3). Also, let pk, qk
and rk be the direction cosines of the A;th member attached to
node n, with axes X, Y and Z, respectively.
Transactions of the ASME
 Morison's equation (Sarpkaya, 1981; Morison, 1950) can
be used to evaluate the wave force on an inclined cylinder by
considering the projected area and volume of the cylinder in
a plane normal to the force component under consideration
together with the corresponding velocity component.
Denote p = mass density of water, Dk = diameter of the
Mi member, CD and CM drag and inertia coefficients, and
Lk = tributary length of member k; v and v are water particle
velocity and acceleration, respectively, and finally,
T, = Jqk2 + rk2 (for i//X), s/pk2 + rk2 (for i//Y)
and slpk2 + qk2 (for i//Z)
in which // means in the direction of.
The general Morison's equation can be simplified if Q, and
CM are assumed to be constant, and structure velocity u and
acceleration u are assumed to be constant over the tributary
length and equal to their values at the joint. The drag term is
nonlinear and is linearized using the equivalent linearization
technique (Malhotra, 1970). Accordingly, the hydrodynamic
forces are expressed as
W/(0= S r.L* <XkVi + PkOt,Vi
Dk
- p(CM - 1)T — Ui
where o>, is the standard deviation of the relative velocity r,
v, — Ui, u, is the velocity of the structure at joint i, and
ak = pCM-K - % = yCDDkJ%fw
The first two terms in (27) yield the vector of effective wave
forces {P(t)\. The third and fourth terms in (27) are the added
v (+18)
(0.0)
(- 22 )
\ V
(-44)
V
mass and hydrodynamic damping, respectively. These terms
can be assembled in the added mass matrix [Ma] and hydro-
dynamic damping matrix [C„]. Both of these matrices are
diagonal, and their diagonal elements follow directly from
(27) as coefficients at ii, and iih respectively.
In (27), the hydrodynamic damping terms depend on both
the structural velocity and water particle velocity. For free
vibration analysis in calm water, water particle velocity v is
zero and the drag term is proportional to w2, which can be
neglected for small amplitudes. In forced response analysis,
the drag terms are evaluated by an iterative procedure.
(26)
Governing Equations of Motion
With the foundation properties and wave effects specified,
the governing equations of the tower (Figs. 1, 3) are
[M]{u\ + [C]\u\ + [K]{u) = {P,{t)) (29)
where [M] is the mass matrix of the structure composed of
lumped masses of the structure and the added mass. The
damping matrix [C] includes the foundation damping matrix
[C/], the structural damping matrix [Cs] and the hydrody-
namic damping matrix [CH\, and thus is
[C] = [Q] + [C] + [C„] (30)
Vk<rf,U, (27)
The stiffness matrix [K] is the total stiffness matrix comprising
both the structural and foundation stiffness matrices [Ks] and
[KA
[K] = [Kf\ + [Ks] (31)
(28)
The vectors \u\, {u\ and [u] describe the structural accelera-
tion, velocity and displacement, respectively. The structural
stiffness matrix [Ks] is obtained using the standard displace-
ment approach. The structural damping matrix [C,] is as-
sumed to be proportional to the stiffness matrix, i.e.,
[C] = [K,]2p/a (32)
where 0 is material damping ratio and w is taken as the first
natural frequency of the tower. The elements of the loading
I vector are given by the first two terms of (27).
Free Vibration. If modal analysis is to be employed, free
vibrations have to be analyzed first using equation (29) with
[Pi] = (Oj. Complex eigenvalue analysis yields the modes,
natural frequencies and modal damping. Pile group flexibility
reduces the natural frequencies and structural modal damping
but produces significant foundation damping (Mitwally,
e
1987).
<\j

- Main Legs
Response to Wave Forces
For the response solution by means of modal superposition,
V (-74) the displacement w, is expressed in terms of generalized co-
ordinates and vibration modes, i.e.,
Skirt Piles
«/(0 = 2 < W ) (33)

where 4>u and rij are the modal and generalized coordinates,
respectively. The spectra of structural displacements are
S„,(«>) = E £ <l>ij<l>ikSVk(a) (34)
Direction of Wave
Advance
where S^k{w) is the cross spectrum of generalized coordinates
Vj, Vk given by
& , , „ » = Hj*(iayHk(i<o)SajQk(») (35)
where Hj(ioi) and Hk(iw) are the mechanical admittance
Fig. 3 Tower on piles used in example functions of modes j and k, respectively, and an asterisk

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering FEBRUARY 1990, Vol. 112 / 39

Downloaded 13 Sep 2008 to 203.110.243.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 indicates the complex conjugate. SQjQ£a>) is the cross spec-
trum of the generalized forces Qj{t) and Qk{t) given by 1.5
Interaction
(36) Considered
S<2jQk(W) =
2! 2 4>u4>mkSPlPm{0l) U » 10 m / s
Interaction I0 a
Neglected
where SPlPm(u>) is the cross-spectrum of nodal loads associated Wave
1.0 Spectrum 10Z I
with d.o.f. i and m. This cross spectrum can be written as
N„ Ns
S
p,pm(">)= £ IJ TkT,LkL,\(w2aka,+ iupka,afl 10 l < "
s
k-u-i
o
H
+ iJkPKTt.ffrJSvJw) + akP,ara[ia>S^Jco)]*\ (37) 0.5 I0U

where L, is the tributary length of member /, T, is defined

10
similarly to Tk, but for member /; finally, Ns is the number
of members attached to node s. Full details of the analysis
will be presented elsewhere. Here, the focus is on the obser- 10"
vations derived.
-1
Frequency Wis !
Example of Tower Response to Wave Forces. As an ex-
ample, the response to wave forces is evaluated for the tower Interaction Considered
shown in Fig. 3 using modal superposition. The Pierson- 10"
Interaction Neglected
Moskowitz sea surface elevation spectrum is used and the
coherence function model is employed to represent the cross- 2 2 m/s
spectra of water particle velocities. A coherence function I0Q
decay coefficient (c) equal to 1 was adopted but more accurate
values should be established. Only the lowest four modes were 10'
included in the analysis as the contribution of the higher
modes is small.
10'
The power spectra of the top node deflection in the direc-
s
tion of the wave propagation are shown for three different o
wind speeds in Fig. 4 together with the sea surface elevation 10" a.
spectra. In general, two peaks are observed in the response
power spectrum: The first one coincides with the peak of
the wave energy spectrum; this is a quasi-static background 10
response with very little dynamic amplification. The second
peak is due to resonant amplification and occurs at the tower 10
first natural frequency, co,. When pile-soil-pile interaction is
included (full lines), it decreases the tower stiffness leading to
an increase in the background response, which depends
mainly on stiffness. Pile-soil-pile interaction also increases the e 5.0
damping leading to a marked decrease in the resonant part of CM

'o
the response. Thus, pile-soil-pile interaction affects the two sidered 10"
peaks with opposite trends. The net effect depends on the 4.0 —
-
relative magnitude of the two parts of the response. 1 -- Interaction Neglected

U = 3 0 m/s
The total response variance a2 can be divided into a back- Spectrum - 10'
I'V.
ground part ab2 and a resonant part a2. At low wind speeds, 3.0 -- !i '-
the resonance part dominates while at high wind speeds the ' \\ \ _ 10'
background part controls the response. Because of the tradeoff u \
between the two effects, the global effect of pile-soil-pile *. 2.0
interaction changes with wind speed, i.e., wavelength. At the il ~^- 10"
i\ " \ ^ ^ - Wave Spectrum -~
lowest wind speed of 10 m/s (shortest waves), pile-soil-pile \\
interaction reduces the rms response by some 32 percent, at 1.0 -
22 m/s has practically no effect, and at the highest wind -- 10
velocity (longest waves) increases the rms by about 17 percent.
However, the change in the total rms response is small (Fig. 3 •*H~, •,^-^^-^u- 1
10
o
5). Nevertheless, the difference in the frequency content of 0. I 2
the response is important for fatigue life considerations. Frequency aj( s~')
Hydrodynamic damping ratio f/, is also found to vary with Fig. 4 Power spectra of platform response to wave forces for different
wind speed. This damping increases with wind speed and to wind velocities
a lesser degree due to pile-soil-pile interaction. The funda-
mental natural frequency of the tower drops from 1.92 s _1 to
1.79 s"1 when pile-soil-pile interaction is accounted for.
Conclusions
Finally, the variation in platform response to wave forces
with soil stiffness (soil shear wave velocity Vs) is shown for a 1 Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction moderately decreases
low wind velocity of 10 m/s in Fig. 6. The reduction in the the natural frequencies and material damping ratios of the
fundamental frequency and an increase in foundation damp- tower but it significantly increases the tower damping ratios
ing with decreasing soil stiffness reduce the spectrum peaks derived from energy dissipation in soil.
and make the spectra broader. For very stiff soil, all the soil- 2 Pile-soil-pile interaction increases the background part
structure interaction effects diminish. of the response to wave forces and reduces its resonant part.

40/Vol. 112, FEBRUARY 1990 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 13 Sep 2008 to 203.110.243.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 E 5 Further research should account for pile nonlinearity
OJ which might reduce the interaction phenomena observed, but
'o cannot be expected to eliminate them.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the support from the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada.

References
Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, 1982, Proceedings of the 2nd Inter-
of 0-00 15-00 30-00 45-00 60-00 national Conference, University of Texas, Austin, Tex.
O'Neill, M. W., 1983, "Group Action in Offshore Piles," Geotechnical
Wind Speed U (m/sec.) Practice in Offshore Engineering, ASCE, New York.
Fig. 5 Root-mean-square response of platform versus wind speed Novak, M., 1974, "Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of Piles," Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 574-598.
Novak, M , Aboul-Ella, F., and Sheta, M„ 1981, "PILAY2—A Computer
Program for Calculation of Stiffness and Damping of Piles in Layered Media,"
The University of Western Ontario, SACDA, London, Ontario, Canada.
El Sharnouby, B., and Novak, M., 1985, "Static and Low-Frequency Re-
sponse of Pile Groups," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.
79-94.
Kaynia, A. M., and Kausel, E., 1982, "Dynamic Behavior of Pile Groups,"
Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, University of Texas,
Austin, Tex., pp. 509-532.
Mitwally, H., and Novak, M., 1987, "Response of Offshore Towers With
Pile Interaction," Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 113, No.
EM7, July, pp. 1065-1084.
Novak, M., 1980, "Soil-Pile Interaction Under Dynamic Loads," Proceed-
ings of the 1st International Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore
Piling, ICE, London.
Sarpkaya, T., and Isaacson, M., 1981, Mechanics of Wave Forces on Offshore
Structures, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Pierson, W. J., and Moskowitz, L., 1964, "A Proposed Spectral Form for
Fully Developed Wind Seas Based on the Similarity Theory of S. A. Kitaigo-
rodskii," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 69, No. 24, Dec.
Borgman, L. E., 1969, "Directional Spectra Models for Design Use," First
<?-00 1-00 2-00
Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Tex., OTC Paper No.
Frequency cois"1) 1069, May.
Berge, B., 1973, "Three-Dimensional Stochastic Response of Offshore Tow-
Fig. 6 Power spectra of tower response to wave forces for different soil ers to Wave Action," thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
stiffnesses (parabolic soil profile, interaction considered, U = 10 m/s) for the Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Mitwally, H., and Novak, M., 1989, "Wave Forces on Fixed Offshore
Structures in Short-Crested Seas," Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 115,
3 The total response to wave forces is reduced due to pile No. 3, Mar., pp. 636-655.
interaction at low wind speeds, but is increased at high wind Morison, J. R., O'Brien, M. P., Johnson, J. W., and Schoaf, S. A., 1950,
speeds. "The Forces Exerted by Surface Waves on Piles," Petroleum Transactions
AIME,No\. 189, pp. 149-157.
4 Pile-soil-pile interaction must be considered for pile Malhotra, A., and Penzien, J., 1970, "Nondeterministic Analysis of Offshore
clusters, but should not be neglected even for towers with Structures," Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 96,
widely spaced main legs. No. EM6, Dec., pp. 985-1003.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering FEBRUARY 1990, Vol. 112 / 41

Downloaded 13 Sep 2008 to 203.110.243.21. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm